From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok? |
Date: | 2008-10-10 18:12:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0810101347200.204@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Gregory Stark wrote:
> They don't quote sustained bandwidth for consumer drives but 50-60MB/s are the
> numbers I remembered -- admittedly from more than a couple years ago. I didn't
> realize 7200 RPM drives had reached such speeds yet.
The cheap ($42!) 7200RPM SATA disks I bought a stack of for my home server
hit a sequential 110MB/s at the beginning edge, at the other end
throughput is still 60-70MB/s. The smaller capacities of Seagate's
7200.11 average about 100MB/s nowadays. But by the time you seek to a
location (8-9ms) and line the heads up (half a rotation at 7200RPM
averages 4ms) you can easily end up at 12-13ms or higher measured access
time on random reads with those. So the true random/sequential ratio
reaches crazy numbers.
I don't think random_page_cost actually corresponds with any real number
anymore. I just treat it as an uncalibrated knob you can turn and
benchmark the results at.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2008-10-10 18:38:52 | Re: Transactions and temp tables |
Previous Message | Michael Renner | 2008-10-10 17:53:40 | Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok? |